I read in the paper the other day that the number of people who identify as atheists has grown tremendously in the last few decades. The reason cited for this phenomenon was the growth of fundamentalism in the two largest religions, Christianity and Islam.
This is interesting, but not at all surprising. Atheism, always alluring, is especially attractive in comparison to fundamentalism. Extremes attract extremes. And the extreme of fundamentalism, contrary to its aim, is actually a damned good argument against belief! For, in my mind, fundamentalists are anti-intellectual and atheists are first and foremost thinking people. Perhaps that is the reason why I usually feel more comfortable with the latter than the former.
Back in the forties, when I took my first uncertain steps in the direction of Catholicism from a loose kind of agnosticism, my mind was suspicious...not at all eager to convert. The long years as a youth being dragged off to a Baptist church had left a bad taste, and I certainly was not going to abandon my intervening agnosticism for anything remotely similar. I remember distinctly, as though it was yesterday, the chaplain [This took place in a military hospital, where I was recovering from a wound.] took me by surprise when he told me that it took much more than just a declaration of willingness on my part to join the Church. Oh no. I would have to learn all the basic things about the religion, what it taught and why. I was pleased to find that there was a firm foundation of reasonability to Catholicism. Because my stay in the hospital was fairly long, I had the necessary time to take all the "lessons" it required. Good thing too, because I was a questioning, even somewhat argumentative "prospect" and the priest had a tough job on his hand with me.
In fact, that questioning attitude right at the beginning has stayed with me to this day, hence my Contrarianism...hence my continuously questioning loyalty as a Catholic. For me, this is a basic and "natural" stance; given my nature, I could scarcely maintain a hold on my faith otherwise. But it is precisely because of this ingrained history of questioning, that I am not in danger from the secular humanism so rampant in the world today.
Reading this article about the resurgence of atheism, reminded me of something I read in a book by Michael Novak, titled “Belief and Unbelief: A Philosophy of Self-knowledge.” I read this decades ago, but one thing has always stuck in my mind... that he confesses an attraction to atheism…“There are many things in the atheistic position that I envy, and struggle to make my own. But always there have been contrary experiences and reflections that made it impossible for me to become an atheist conscientiously.”
While re-reading this, my eyes also chanced upon his quote from Sartre, perhaps the world’s most famous atheist, in “The Words.”... “Atheism is a cruel and long-range affair…I think I’ve carried it through.” Though these two quotes may seem contradictory, I think that’s because we’re talking about Sartre, for whom nothing appeared to have been intellectually easy! I have always thought that the intellectual life as lived by Sartre was very trying and troubling.
As for my own intellectual life, I can honestly say my faith has not interferred. Indeed, it seems to me that my faith has always been a correlative, helpful in my rational life, not matter to what end I apply it. This is so true, that I imagine it would prove just as correlative for me if I were to get deeply involved in the study of physics, despite the impression that most physicists tend to be a-religious, if not downright agnostic.
So it is easy for me to see how the growth of fundamentalism in religion could, in fact, lead to growth of atheism. Even though institutional religion, with its tarnished history, could offer many other causes, the phenomenon of fundamentalism is quite clearly a prime inducement.
Those other causes provide a rich source for further blogging. So, for anyone reading this,...stay tuned!
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Un-believable Faith- Fundamentalism
I’m about half way through a book about the Christian Right, “American Fascists,” by Chris Hedges. The thrust of the book is that these people pose a real danger to this country, nurturing a hope to recapture the powers of government and turn this nation into a bastion of (its) faith. Of course, that “revolt,” were it to happen would spell the end of tolerance and the freedoms we currently enjoy…the freedom, for example to believe or not to believe in their interpretation of religion. I cannot see this happening, don’t believe they wield that much political power, but the thing that strikes me about these people is not so much the scope of their intentions, but the incredibleness of their beliefs.
They are, of course, literalists, believing in the Genesis story of creation in every detail. And when I see the figures as to their numbers, how many followers they have, it boggles my mind. I find it really hard to believe that such un-believable, illogical, unreasonable things could appeal to such a large number of people. It shouldn’t be so hard to believe, however. After all, I have a sister who believes such things...an absolute literalist. She is truly locked into this belief-system, not the least bit open to argument. In fact, any effort to de-program her would be taken as just one more proof of the rightness of her faith.
And that’s a very chilling thought. The leaders of this religion have not only created a totally un-believable set of ideas, but have set up, a-priori, a defense system, guaranteeing that most of their converts will stand fast against all arguments to the contrary. Their crowning achievement is that they have prepared their adherents for such “warfare,” making such efforts serve as proof of their faith! They even give their members a way to ward off this enemy, warning them to pray all the harder, when these things happen, that they are from the devil and must be fought to the death by the power of prayer.
To maintain faith in any religion in today’s world is difficult, even one that I does not assault reason and logic; there are many persuasive arguments against the whole idea of faith…believing in anything that is not absolutely scientifically verifiable. My own Catholicism, contrarian though it is, for example, requires constant vigilance on my part for it to be held firmly. Sometimes, I listen to friends who seem to manage quite nicely (thank you) without bothering with notions having to do with the whys and wherefores of physical life, let alone notions about non-terrestrial life after death. It is a luxury, so to speak, which I cannot access. Being of a different “bent,” I seem destined to occupy my mind with questions about these things. It is essential for me that Catholicism does not require me to suspend critical thinking... does not do violence to logic and reason. Everything it dogmatically declares, (as opposed to mere "teachings" or sometimes temporarily held opinions) while not accessible through human reason alone, is at least not in conflict with it!
I wish I could simply observe fundamentalism as just a silly, but essentially harmless phenomenon. But I cannot. I agree with Hedges, that organizationally and in such huge numbers, they represent a real and positive danger to the world of free ideation. That they are dangerous is quite evident, whether they come from the bed of Christianity or the wellspring of Islam, they share this frightening characteristic…a total intolerance of people who don’t agree with them.
I would hope that a great number of liberal, critical thinking people would read this book, because the danger is that too many of us do see fundamentalism as just silly and inconsequential. Liberalism must find a way to knock through the walls these people have erected around themselves. It will require subtlety and compassion; a direct and denigrating attack will not work at all. We must get through to them whenever possible by making common cause…from a spiritual point of view. We must not attempt to turn them into radical humanists, for that is what they expect and that is what they are very well immunized against.
For most of these people, we can only hope to turn them in the direction of liberal Protestantism…say Universalist/Unitarianism. Contrarian Catholicism, I would imagine is far too big a jump, since part of their indoctrination has taught them to think of the Roman church as the very devil himself. I think back upon my own conversion to Catholicism and why it was so easy for me. The big difference is that I did not convert directly from a Baptist when I took that step. I jumped first into an agnostic mind set…no longer able to believe in the stuff I received in “Sunday School,” but not knowing of any alternative.
I’m sure it’s a whole lot easier for an agnostic to “jump” to Catholicism, once they see the embrace of reason and logic it confirms. For example, on the matter of literalism: The Church recognizes that there are elements in scripture which can be understood literally, without abandoning reason, but that many other elements should not be so read. Thus, according to the Catholic Catechism: “#115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.”
The Church has never taught that Genesis, for example, should be understood literally. We are taught that the bible is not to be read as a scientific text. Nor, is it to be read as being in conflict with science. Read allegorically, the biblical story of creation fits with poetic perfection into the theory of evolution; there is absolutely no conflict between our faith and Darwinism. We are not required to believe in monogenism, for one example, that we all came from one wedded couple…Adam and Eve. In fact, we are not required to accept the notion that the physical being of man was “created” instantaneously, but rather that the physical nature of humankind most likely did evolve from pre-existently similar types of animal. The only thing we are required to believe (and this, though not deduced by reason or scientific fact, is not in conflict with same) is that the soul of humanity was infused by God at some point along the way into the creature to be known as man and it is in this way that we are cast in His image. Eminently reasonable. Requiring no prodigious leap of illogic.
They are, of course, literalists, believing in the Genesis story of creation in every detail. And when I see the figures as to their numbers, how many followers they have, it boggles my mind. I find it really hard to believe that such un-believable, illogical, unreasonable things could appeal to such a large number of people. It shouldn’t be so hard to believe, however. After all, I have a sister who believes such things...an absolute literalist. She is truly locked into this belief-system, not the least bit open to argument. In fact, any effort to de-program her would be taken as just one more proof of the rightness of her faith.
And that’s a very chilling thought. The leaders of this religion have not only created a totally un-believable set of ideas, but have set up, a-priori, a defense system, guaranteeing that most of their converts will stand fast against all arguments to the contrary. Their crowning achievement is that they have prepared their adherents for such “warfare,” making such efforts serve as proof of their faith! They even give their members a way to ward off this enemy, warning them to pray all the harder, when these things happen, that they are from the devil and must be fought to the death by the power of prayer.
To maintain faith in any religion in today’s world is difficult, even one that I does not assault reason and logic; there are many persuasive arguments against the whole idea of faith…believing in anything that is not absolutely scientifically verifiable. My own Catholicism, contrarian though it is, for example, requires constant vigilance on my part for it to be held firmly. Sometimes, I listen to friends who seem to manage quite nicely (thank you) without bothering with notions having to do with the whys and wherefores of physical life, let alone notions about non-terrestrial life after death. It is a luxury, so to speak, which I cannot access. Being of a different “bent,” I seem destined to occupy my mind with questions about these things. It is essential for me that Catholicism does not require me to suspend critical thinking... does not do violence to logic and reason. Everything it dogmatically declares, (as opposed to mere "teachings" or sometimes temporarily held opinions) while not accessible through human reason alone, is at least not in conflict with it!
I wish I could simply observe fundamentalism as just a silly, but essentially harmless phenomenon. But I cannot. I agree with Hedges, that organizationally and in such huge numbers, they represent a real and positive danger to the world of free ideation. That they are dangerous is quite evident, whether they come from the bed of Christianity or the wellspring of Islam, they share this frightening characteristic…a total intolerance of people who don’t agree with them.
I would hope that a great number of liberal, critical thinking people would read this book, because the danger is that too many of us do see fundamentalism as just silly and inconsequential. Liberalism must find a way to knock through the walls these people have erected around themselves. It will require subtlety and compassion; a direct and denigrating attack will not work at all. We must get through to them whenever possible by making common cause…from a spiritual point of view. We must not attempt to turn them into radical humanists, for that is what they expect and that is what they are very well immunized against.
For most of these people, we can only hope to turn them in the direction of liberal Protestantism…say Universalist/Unitarianism. Contrarian Catholicism, I would imagine is far too big a jump, since part of their indoctrination has taught them to think of the Roman church as the very devil himself. I think back upon my own conversion to Catholicism and why it was so easy for me. The big difference is that I did not convert directly from a Baptist when I took that step. I jumped first into an agnostic mind set…no longer able to believe in the stuff I received in “Sunday School,” but not knowing of any alternative.
I’m sure it’s a whole lot easier for an agnostic to “jump” to Catholicism, once they see the embrace of reason and logic it confirms. For example, on the matter of literalism: The Church recognizes that there are elements in scripture which can be understood literally, without abandoning reason, but that many other elements should not be so read. Thus, according to the Catholic Catechism: “#115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.”
The Church has never taught that Genesis, for example, should be understood literally. We are taught that the bible is not to be read as a scientific text. Nor, is it to be read as being in conflict with science. Read allegorically, the biblical story of creation fits with poetic perfection into the theory of evolution; there is absolutely no conflict between our faith and Darwinism. We are not required to believe in monogenism, for one example, that we all came from one wedded couple…Adam and Eve. In fact, we are not required to accept the notion that the physical being of man was “created” instantaneously, but rather that the physical nature of humankind most likely did evolve from pre-existently similar types of animal. The only thing we are required to believe (and this, though not deduced by reason or scientific fact, is not in conflict with same) is that the soul of humanity was infused by God at some point along the way into the creature to be known as man and it is in this way that we are cast in His image. Eminently reasonable. Requiring no prodigious leap of illogic.
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Affectional Orientation
I agree with Greg that the mechanical/sexual aspect of human relationships is not the most important piece of the puzzle. Technically speaking, a case could be made for me to call myself a bi-sexual in strictly sexual terms. I do not ordinarily claim this distinction because I am too far off center (in the Kinsey scale), leaning too decidedly in the homo direction for it to have any practical value. But the point I'm making is not the freqency with which I feel sexually attracted to the opposite sex, nor even the amount of pleasure received from it, but the degree to which affection is involved.
I can honestly say that, in a purely physical sense, my sexual experiences with women have been quite as enjoyable as those with men...the difference being affectional. Even in instances of one-night stands, affection is involved with the latter, never the former. That is precisely why I only tried marriage once, because the degree of love was simply insufficient to maintain the relationship. I thought it would be, but it wasn't and both of us felt the lack of that essential ingredient in any committed relationship.
All other sexual activity with women was engaged in without affection being involved, not being desired by either party. Sometimes we seem to sink to a purely grunting animal level, and as long as that's all both people want, it doesn't really matter a whole lot. Interesting: we call this mutual gratification "making love," when it is so far from that, either in desire or intention. I guess that's just another indication of society's inability to face the facts of our more brutish existence.
Getting back to the Church's attitude on the matter...there again, it should concentrate on the loving, affectional aspect and stop thinking purely of the mechanical aspect of sexual activity. I do believe that sex with affection is far superior as a total experience. Another difference between ourselves and the rest of the animal world. Having once been a dog breeder, I do not hesitate to judge the act between them as being totally mehanical, lacking any affectional element whatsoever...even, with canines, apparently involving way too much pain!
Imagine the Church uging holistic sex, empasizing the positive, rather than the negative for a change. Imagine it teaching us that it is a matter of spiritual failure, to have sex without, at least the intention of love and the desire for committment. I might not want to use the term "sin" to describe purely mechanical sex between two human beings, but I have no hesitancy, calling it ignoble, incomplete and perhaps ultimately not as satisfying for human purposes.
I can honestly say that, in a purely physical sense, my sexual experiences with women have been quite as enjoyable as those with men...the difference being affectional. Even in instances of one-night stands, affection is involved with the latter, never the former. That is precisely why I only tried marriage once, because the degree of love was simply insufficient to maintain the relationship. I thought it would be, but it wasn't and both of us felt the lack of that essential ingredient in any committed relationship.
All other sexual activity with women was engaged in without affection being involved, not being desired by either party. Sometimes we seem to sink to a purely grunting animal level, and as long as that's all both people want, it doesn't really matter a whole lot. Interesting: we call this mutual gratification "making love," when it is so far from that, either in desire or intention. I guess that's just another indication of society's inability to face the facts of our more brutish existence.
Getting back to the Church's attitude on the matter...there again, it should concentrate on the loving, affectional aspect and stop thinking purely of the mechanical aspect of sexual activity. I do believe that sex with affection is far superior as a total experience. Another difference between ourselves and the rest of the animal world. Having once been a dog breeder, I do not hesitate to judge the act between them as being totally mehanical, lacking any affectional element whatsoever...even, with canines, apparently involving way too much pain!
Imagine the Church uging holistic sex, empasizing the positive, rather than the negative for a change. Imagine it teaching us that it is a matter of spiritual failure, to have sex without, at least the intention of love and the desire for committment. I might not want to use the term "sin" to describe purely mechanical sex between two human beings, but I have no hesitancy, calling it ignoble, incomplete and perhaps ultimately not as satisfying for human purposes.
Friday, August 31, 2007
The Church and Human Sexuality
Christianity has long suffered from a bad case of fright in dealing with human sexuality. It has not always been thus and although the problem surely predates the advent of Jansenism, (The Catholic version of Puritanism), that scourge undoubtedly worsened the situation, forcing the Church into an ever more rigid attitude regarding all things sexual.
The language of Vatican Council II regarding sexuality within the confines of marriage is positively glowing, poetic. This follows decades of pastoral approaches which can only be described as disdainful, giving sex a grudging tolerance. Now it is to be seen as a gift from God and, although it must always be open to the possibility of procreation, couples can engage in it quite freely and as an end in itself, thus expressing marital unity.
But the bishops in council were not yet ready to open its arms to its homosexual members; not yet able to countenance a loving unity between two persons of the same sex. I stress the word "yet," because this is one of the most obvious examples of developmental theology...it standing in need of a good bit of "development!" The Church suffers from insufficient understanding of human nature.
I quote from the official Catholic Catechism: "#2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." (italics, mine)Note from this teaching the words "...It's psychological genesis remains largely unexplained." The Church is here acknowledges that it has an incomplete understanding of the psychology of homosexuality, implying that when it does have such an understanding, it will amend its teachings to reflect it. Once again, it is not so much a case of the Church teaching in error, as it is the Church teaching incompletely. Even in the secular world, the world of science, homosexuality is not completely understood, but gradually, in time we will learn more and more.
How much of the current teaching would have to be changed? Actually, not a great deal. Some critics would strike the word "disordered" for example, but I think a case could be made for keeping it. The word "Disordered," could be justified if only by virtue of the fact that homosexuals constitute a minority, a departure from the norm, heterosexuality. How much distance is there between "departure from the norm," and "disordered?" The "norm," is "ordered" and that which departs from it would be dis-ordered." As a homosexual myself, I would not find this objectionable, but I readily admit that many of my more radical gay friends would. To them, I would say what I say to the Church with its present teaching, "time will tell. Sooner or later the truth of the matter will prevail." In the meantime, Contrarian as I am, I see no sin in my orientation. (See my blog on freedom of conscience...this is the best and most personal example from my own life of using that freedom.)
Over the years, I have given it a lot of thought, giving a great deal of attention to the Church's teaching on the matter. Only then, did I conclude that the Church is incomplete in its teaching on the subject, not having factored in a deeper understanding of natural law.
It might strike some that this is wishful thinking on my part. To them I would mention how close the Church once came to changing its position vis-a-vis birth control. Paul VI convened a special commission of clerical and lay experts on the subject to recommend to him what the Church's position ought to be on the matter. The members of that commission were very much aware of the leeway they had been given. Unfortunately, the word "recommend" meant just that, and Paul did not embrace their more liberal position, instead maintaining the Church's long-time position without any change. But the point shows how issues can be opened up and made liable to change. At some distant time in the future, I rather think a similar commission might be set up by some future Pope and, this time a recommendation for greater understanding will be embraced.
This might be a good time for a reminder: There is a big difference between dogma, "infallibly" defined, and mere teachings. The former are set in stone, so to speak, and the latter are subject to development.
The language of Vatican Council II regarding sexuality within the confines of marriage is positively glowing, poetic. This follows decades of pastoral approaches which can only be described as disdainful, giving sex a grudging tolerance. Now it is to be seen as a gift from God and, although it must always be open to the possibility of procreation, couples can engage in it quite freely and as an end in itself, thus expressing marital unity.
But the bishops in council were not yet ready to open its arms to its homosexual members; not yet able to countenance a loving unity between two persons of the same sex. I stress the word "yet," because this is one of the most obvious examples of developmental theology...it standing in need of a good bit of "development!" The Church suffers from insufficient understanding of human nature.
I quote from the official Catholic Catechism: "#2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." (italics, mine)Note from this teaching the words "...It's psychological genesis remains largely unexplained." The Church is here acknowledges that it has an incomplete understanding of the psychology of homosexuality, implying that when it does have such an understanding, it will amend its teachings to reflect it. Once again, it is not so much a case of the Church teaching in error, as it is the Church teaching incompletely. Even in the secular world, the world of science, homosexuality is not completely understood, but gradually, in time we will learn more and more.
How much of the current teaching would have to be changed? Actually, not a great deal. Some critics would strike the word "disordered" for example, but I think a case could be made for keeping it. The word "Disordered," could be justified if only by virtue of the fact that homosexuals constitute a minority, a departure from the norm, heterosexuality. How much distance is there between "departure from the norm," and "disordered?" The "norm," is "ordered" and that which departs from it would be dis-ordered." As a homosexual myself, I would not find this objectionable, but I readily admit that many of my more radical gay friends would. To them, I would say what I say to the Church with its present teaching, "time will tell. Sooner or later the truth of the matter will prevail." In the meantime, Contrarian as I am, I see no sin in my orientation. (See my blog on freedom of conscience...this is the best and most personal example from my own life of using that freedom.)
Over the years, I have given it a lot of thought, giving a great deal of attention to the Church's teaching on the matter. Only then, did I conclude that the Church is incomplete in its teaching on the subject, not having factored in a deeper understanding of natural law.
It might strike some that this is wishful thinking on my part. To them I would mention how close the Church once came to changing its position vis-a-vis birth control. Paul VI convened a special commission of clerical and lay experts on the subject to recommend to him what the Church's position ought to be on the matter. The members of that commission were very much aware of the leeway they had been given. Unfortunately, the word "recommend" meant just that, and Paul did not embrace their more liberal position, instead maintaining the Church's long-time position without any change. But the point shows how issues can be opened up and made liable to change. At some distant time in the future, I rather think a similar commission might be set up by some future Pope and, this time a recommendation for greater understanding will be embraced.
This might be a good time for a reminder: There is a big difference between dogma, "infallibly" defined, and mere teachings. The former are set in stone, so to speak, and the latter are subject to development.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Purgatory and Hell -cont. & Anthropomorphism
In view of the three concurrently required conditions in order to commit a mortal sin, and considering the great amount of the lesser sort of sinning going on and, if we think of Heaven, Hell and Purgatory as actual places (which, of course, they are not!) then Purgatory is the one most crowded; few of us lead such exemplary lives that we would deserve to go immediately to Heaven, upon our death and, likewise, few of us are so profoundly wicked as to deserve a quick one-way ticket to Hell. Whew! Thank God for that. I, for one, am pretty damned sure that I, being a sort of penny-ante sinner, will almost certainly go to Purgatory. Hey. It's not the tops, but all things considered, I think myself pretty lucky and, for sure, I'll have plenty of company!
---------------
Anthropomorphism: In the above addendum and probably in most of my comments thus far, I have most likely played with the intellectually dangerous tendency to picture things and places that have no form to begin with. Heaven, hell and purgatory are not places, as I've already said, but we will not require any space to occupy any way, being pure spirit and body-less. This tendency to imagine the unimaginable is only human, of course, and I don't want to get carried away in a crusade against something that is, after all, so natural. I just want to point out how dangerous it is to put too much emphasis on such things. I have friends who do believe that heaven, and hell are places (one being way up above in the clouds, of course, and the other way, way deep down below!..where, of course, we'll recognize each other in our tired old body forms. I have not wanted to test their belief systems too much by asking how we will be dressed and will we have changes of attire, so as not to be wearing the same thing all the time!)
This tendency to think of the spiritual world in graphic terms, has brought about some great art throughout the ages and great literature. How could Dante have written his great works without using anthropomorphic terms of reference...and how could we have understood him, if he did? So...yes...it is natural and, as long as we don't fall victim to intellectual sloppiness and become literalists, it's perfectly okay. But I am staggered by the number of people who do precisely that, and get caught up in all kinds of intellectual snags as a result.
I was talking to a lady the other day who quite seriously referred to the fires of hell and I was frightened. Not by the fires described, but by the conviction she showed in such a thing. But, she's not alone. There are millions of people who believe in the tongues of fire ready to sear the limbs of those who don't straighten-up and "get right with the Lord." And if that's not frightening enough, what about the fact that there is a major non-Catholic Christian religion that teaches that God, the Father has a body and that the virgin birth came about by way of that Father's body having sexual relations with the virgin Jewish maiden, name of Mary!
It is not so surprising that there are a number of people who are completely turned off to religion and who call themselves atheists, when they see themselves surrounded by illogical believers. If the belief systems themselves, so replete with such nonsense were not bad enough, they have the spectacle of what people who hold to such systems do to one another. Witness the recent spectacle of Protestant and Catholic wars in Ireland. Witness all the war and mayhem practiced thoughout history in the name of one religion or another. How can anyone blame individuals who opt out and refuse to accept the existence of a God who is, apparently, the author of such insanity?
And, so far, I have had reference only to Christianity. What can I say about fundamentalist, jihadist, fratricidal Islamists, who could only be persuaded to stop killing their fellow Islamists, by directing their blood-lust to the "heathens," the Christians? Would that they could be a tiny bit more merciful amongst themselves and toward others in imitation of Allah, the Most Merciful?
Sometimes, it is hard to hold fast to being even a Contrarian Catholic and just throw the whole thing up in desparation. What keeps me moored, even though questioningly, is knowing something else besides the horrors listed above: That this religion has been the nurturing source for a considerable number of heroically holy people...the Saints, as well as the haters, killers, etc. The reference in the New Testament about good trees bearing good fruit...that keeps me steadfast in my faith, contrary at times, though it be!
I can continue to get great comfort from looking at the beautiful statue of the Blessed Virgin in my garden and be inspired by gazing at the crucifix on my bedroom wall, but I know they are just representative of a spiritual substratum, bearing no likeness whatsoever to the essences they attempt to picture.
---------------
Anthropomorphism: In the above addendum and probably in most of my comments thus far, I have most likely played with the intellectually dangerous tendency to picture things and places that have no form to begin with. Heaven, hell and purgatory are not places, as I've already said, but we will not require any space to occupy any way, being pure spirit and body-less. This tendency to imagine the unimaginable is only human, of course, and I don't want to get carried away in a crusade against something that is, after all, so natural. I just want to point out how dangerous it is to put too much emphasis on such things. I have friends who do believe that heaven, and hell are places (one being way up above in the clouds, of course, and the other way, way deep down below!..where, of course, we'll recognize each other in our tired old body forms. I have not wanted to test their belief systems too much by asking how we will be dressed and will we have changes of attire, so as not to be wearing the same thing all the time!)
This tendency to think of the spiritual world in graphic terms, has brought about some great art throughout the ages and great literature. How could Dante have written his great works without using anthropomorphic terms of reference...and how could we have understood him, if he did? So...yes...it is natural and, as long as we don't fall victim to intellectual sloppiness and become literalists, it's perfectly okay. But I am staggered by the number of people who do precisely that, and get caught up in all kinds of intellectual snags as a result.
I was talking to a lady the other day who quite seriously referred to the fires of hell and I was frightened. Not by the fires described, but by the conviction she showed in such a thing. But, she's not alone. There are millions of people who believe in the tongues of fire ready to sear the limbs of those who don't straighten-up and "get right with the Lord." And if that's not frightening enough, what about the fact that there is a major non-Catholic Christian religion that teaches that God, the Father has a body and that the virgin birth came about by way of that Father's body having sexual relations with the virgin Jewish maiden, name of Mary!
It is not so surprising that there are a number of people who are completely turned off to religion and who call themselves atheists, when they see themselves surrounded by illogical believers. If the belief systems themselves, so replete with such nonsense were not bad enough, they have the spectacle of what people who hold to such systems do to one another. Witness the recent spectacle of Protestant and Catholic wars in Ireland. Witness all the war and mayhem practiced thoughout history in the name of one religion or another. How can anyone blame individuals who opt out and refuse to accept the existence of a God who is, apparently, the author of such insanity?
And, so far, I have had reference only to Christianity. What can I say about fundamentalist, jihadist, fratricidal Islamists, who could only be persuaded to stop killing their fellow Islamists, by directing their blood-lust to the "heathens," the Christians? Would that they could be a tiny bit more merciful amongst themselves and toward others in imitation of Allah, the Most Merciful?
Sometimes, it is hard to hold fast to being even a Contrarian Catholic and just throw the whole thing up in desparation. What keeps me moored, even though questioningly, is knowing something else besides the horrors listed above: That this religion has been the nurturing source for a considerable number of heroically holy people...the Saints, as well as the haters, killers, etc. The reference in the New Testament about good trees bearing good fruit...that keeps me steadfast in my faith, contrary at times, though it be!
I can continue to get great comfort from looking at the beautiful statue of the Blessed Virgin in my garden and be inspired by gazing at the crucifix on my bedroom wall, but I know they are just representative of a spiritual substratum, bearing no likeness whatsoever to the essences they attempt to picture.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Purgatory and Hell -Eminently Reasonable Doctrines
As a Contrarian Catholic, I take much comfort from the fact that my "contrariness" is not all-pervasive and does not apply to each an every doctrine taught by the Church. I take great comfort from the sheer reasonableness of most of Catholic teaching, unlike the unreasonableness of some Protestant churches.
Take Purgatory and Hell for example. Some fundamentalist Christians take a very hard line about sin, seeing no distinction between serious and not-so-serious kinds. A starving man, for instance, stealing a loaf of bread deserves to go to hell just as much as a man robbing a bank of a million dollars! No middle ground, no juvenile detention, just plain hell for all eternity! Whoa!
And take the three well-conceived "conditions" which define mortal sin in Catholic teaching: 1. Serious matter, in and of itself. 2. Due deliberation. 3. Full Consent of the Will. Think about that for a minute. Most of us would agree on what would constitute a serious matter. Killing, for example...quite serious. But killing, committed in certain circumstances might not constitute a mortal sin. Even the state, recognizes factors which mitigate the degree of culpability, such as age, self-defense, insanity, etc.
Now, for due deliberation: The Church requires that this serious sin has to have been committed, not in the heat of the moment, passion, etc., but rather after the act has been deliberatively thought about. And for Full consent of the Will: The Church requires the violator knows full well that what he is doing is a very serious thing, has given it a great deal of thought and then, very determinedly decides to do it! Without all three of these conditions, mortal sin...sin which kills the soul...has not been committed. And, upon death, the soul is not dispatched to hell.
But, as it is with lesser sins, penalties must still be paid. Again, even the state requires this; if a man confesses that he stole money, he is required, at the very least to pay it back and, most likely spend some time in the pokey. And that's where Purgatory comes in...a kind of pokey, in which we spend some time in reparation. An altogether reasonable notion. Maybe I haven't stolen anybody's money, but I have harbored terribly unloving thoughts about that person, even though the Church has taught me to love him. When I die, I will have to pay a just penalty for failure in my Christian obligation of love. After all penalties have been paid, then my soul will be released to heaven and beatific vision.
Now I find this doctrine quite well reasoned and really, quite beautiful.
Take Purgatory and Hell for example. Some fundamentalist Christians take a very hard line about sin, seeing no distinction between serious and not-so-serious kinds. A starving man, for instance, stealing a loaf of bread deserves to go to hell just as much as a man robbing a bank of a million dollars! No middle ground, no juvenile detention, just plain hell for all eternity! Whoa!
And take the three well-conceived "conditions" which define mortal sin in Catholic teaching: 1. Serious matter, in and of itself. 2. Due deliberation. 3. Full Consent of the Will. Think about that for a minute. Most of us would agree on what would constitute a serious matter. Killing, for example...quite serious. But killing, committed in certain circumstances might not constitute a mortal sin. Even the state, recognizes factors which mitigate the degree of culpability, such as age, self-defense, insanity, etc.
Now, for due deliberation: The Church requires that this serious sin has to have been committed, not in the heat of the moment, passion, etc., but rather after the act has been deliberatively thought about. And for Full consent of the Will: The Church requires the violator knows full well that what he is doing is a very serious thing, has given it a great deal of thought and then, very determinedly decides to do it! Without all three of these conditions, mortal sin...sin which kills the soul...has not been committed. And, upon death, the soul is not dispatched to hell.
But, as it is with lesser sins, penalties must still be paid. Again, even the state requires this; if a man confesses that he stole money, he is required, at the very least to pay it back and, most likely spend some time in the pokey. And that's where Purgatory comes in...a kind of pokey, in which we spend some time in reparation. An altogether reasonable notion. Maybe I haven't stolen anybody's money, but I have harbored terribly unloving thoughts about that person, even though the Church has taught me to love him. When I die, I will have to pay a just penalty for failure in my Christian obligation of love. After all penalties have been paid, then my soul will be released to heaven and beatific vision.
Now I find this doctrine quite well reasoned and really, quite beautiful.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Jesus and Chemotherapy
An article in today’s paper prompts me to note the use of supplicatory prayer and my typical reaction to it.
A Christian pastor’s wife has been diagnosed with cancer and claims she is improving by way of “Jesus and chemotherapy.” Instantly, my hackles are raised, to see the Holy Name of Jesus used in this way, coupled with a medical procedure as a means to a cure. Surely Jesus does not need the assistance of chemotherapy!
It would appear that, for most Christians, “praying” is 95% supplication and perhaps 5% praise.
Of course that 95% includes Catholic basketball players who almost routinely cross themselves when they stand at the “free-throw” line, as well as families gathered beside a loved one’s bedside in a hospital, hoping for a recovery.
The question arises for me, though apparently not too often for those who use supplecatory prayers, what happens to our faith if the ball falls short of the basket and the relative in the hospital dies anyway? Does God weigh in on the side of one team rather than the other? Does He decide to give the doctor’s medicine a little extra boost, or send the family out of the hospital room to plan for a funeral? Is it Christian to use prayer in this fashion?
The quick answer is, yes. We are told by Jesus Christ himself to pray for God’s intercession at certain times so, obviously, it must be a proper thing for a Christian to do. But I worry about the level of faith and to what degree such prayers are ended with the words “however, thy will be done.”
As a Contrarian Catholic, it concerns me to realize that even in warfare between two Christian countries, the clergy on both sides pray for and with the soldiers before they go out with their weapons to kill or be killed. History accounts tell us that Catholic bishops in Germany blessed German soldiers as they prepared to fight the Christians of Britain and the U. S. –just as did the Bishops of the latter countries for their own “boys.”
In my own prayer-life, I seldom use prayer like this for myself, yet I have a gut feeling that it is not only a good thing, but even an effective thing, to pray for others in their times of need. When hearing others relate stressful situations in their lives, it not only comforts both them and myself, when I assure them that “I will keep this in my prayers,”…I also have a feeling that doing so might very well be effective in bringing about the desired result.
I wonder at my resistance or repugnance when I read comments such as those I found in today’s paper. Does a part of me want to say that God doesn’t play favorites, taking one side against another? Intellectually, it seems clear enough, that God works his Will in a general way through the nature he has set in motion. If it rains in one place and causes a game to be called and the sun shines in another place and a team wins, it is…my mind tells me…simply because of the nature of things. The clouds form over a given area through the laws of nature and team in another place wins for the same reason (better training or, perhaps, just because most of the players feel more confidant on that particular occasion!)
I guess what it comes to is that, although supplicatory prayer is a good and Christian thing to do, one should not expect God to intervene and even reverse things in the normal course of nature very often…that such interventions will be rare and should be expected (if at all) only if the prayers are for a worthy and important matter. Surely, the winning of the one point to bring victory to the players of "Notre Dame," and the defeat of those from "St. Monica’s"…surely that does not rise to that level.
Also, I cannot help but think that prayers of worship and adoration are of a higher order and more worthy of us as Christians than are prayers of supplication.
A Christian pastor’s wife has been diagnosed with cancer and claims she is improving by way of “Jesus and chemotherapy.” Instantly, my hackles are raised, to see the Holy Name of Jesus used in this way, coupled with a medical procedure as a means to a cure. Surely Jesus does not need the assistance of chemotherapy!
It would appear that, for most Christians, “praying” is 95% supplication and perhaps 5% praise.
Of course that 95% includes Catholic basketball players who almost routinely cross themselves when they stand at the “free-throw” line, as well as families gathered beside a loved one’s bedside in a hospital, hoping for a recovery.
The question arises for me, though apparently not too often for those who use supplecatory prayers, what happens to our faith if the ball falls short of the basket and the relative in the hospital dies anyway? Does God weigh in on the side of one team rather than the other? Does He decide to give the doctor’s medicine a little extra boost, or send the family out of the hospital room to plan for a funeral? Is it Christian to use prayer in this fashion?
The quick answer is, yes. We are told by Jesus Christ himself to pray for God’s intercession at certain times so, obviously, it must be a proper thing for a Christian to do. But I worry about the level of faith and to what degree such prayers are ended with the words “however, thy will be done.”
As a Contrarian Catholic, it concerns me to realize that even in warfare between two Christian countries, the clergy on both sides pray for and with the soldiers before they go out with their weapons to kill or be killed. History accounts tell us that Catholic bishops in Germany blessed German soldiers as they prepared to fight the Christians of Britain and the U. S. –just as did the Bishops of the latter countries for their own “boys.”
In my own prayer-life, I seldom use prayer like this for myself, yet I have a gut feeling that it is not only a good thing, but even an effective thing, to pray for others in their times of need. When hearing others relate stressful situations in their lives, it not only comforts both them and myself, when I assure them that “I will keep this in my prayers,”…I also have a feeling that doing so might very well be effective in bringing about the desired result.
I wonder at my resistance or repugnance when I read comments such as those I found in today’s paper. Does a part of me want to say that God doesn’t play favorites, taking one side against another? Intellectually, it seems clear enough, that God works his Will in a general way through the nature he has set in motion. If it rains in one place and causes a game to be called and the sun shines in another place and a team wins, it is…my mind tells me…simply because of the nature of things. The clouds form over a given area through the laws of nature and team in another place wins for the same reason (better training or, perhaps, just because most of the players feel more confidant on that particular occasion!)
I guess what it comes to is that, although supplicatory prayer is a good and Christian thing to do, one should not expect God to intervene and even reverse things in the normal course of nature very often…that such interventions will be rare and should be expected (if at all) only if the prayers are for a worthy and important matter. Surely, the winning of the one point to bring victory to the players of "Notre Dame," and the defeat of those from "St. Monica’s"…surely that does not rise to that level.
Also, I cannot help but think that prayers of worship and adoration are of a higher order and more worthy of us as Christians than are prayers of supplication.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Mother Theresa's Crisis of Faith
There is a newsmagazine out now which features Mother Theresa of Calcutta on the front cover and a sensational title…something to the effect that she had a “secret” life of doubt about God. I haven’t read, and don’t intend to read this article, but the newspapers have carried other articles along the same line, which I have read, and I am amazed that they are so ignorant of what the spiritual life is all about…that it is about journey, about stumbling over blocks. I assume that other voices will soon enough join the fray and straighten the media out, telling them and their listeners that crisis of faith is something all people who strive for holiness will encounter sooner or later, Mother Theresa not excepted.
Anyone who has not encountered doubts, simply has not enlisted in the struggle for spiritual growth. It’s as simple as that. I gather from what I’ve read, they think that having doubt, knocks one out of the “running” when it comes to Rome’s recognition of sanctity in a person. On the contrary; evidence that the candidate never fought doubt could be taken as proof they were not a saint! A declared Saint is a Hero of the Spirit...one who has faught the good fight and won!
Well, I guess we should be grateful, in this supremely secular/consumerist, hedonistic society, the question is raised at all. Perhaps, through these articles, some persons may be reached and clued into what the real struggle of life is all about. Of course, the doubts to which Mother Theresa confessed, had to do with the “sense” of God’s reality, rather than a purely intellectual question.
Even the slightest perusal of the lives of declared saints makes it quite clear that they all had periods in which they were deprived of the sense or the feeling of God’s presence, let alone His love. I am remembering reading of the “dry spell” as it was called in one of the biographies of St. Francis.
Most people are stuck on the “feel good” level of religion. They go to church and they pray because it makes them feel good! God help them, when that feeling is pulled away the least little bit; for that is when their faith comes into question. Will they stick to their pursuit, or will they just give up? If they “stand firm,” believing even without the sense of God’s love, then they can hope to progress to a higher or deeper level.
The name of my faith, “Contrarian Catholic,” describes just such a struggle. God forbid that I should lay claim to ever having experienced the soul-searing sense-of-God-depravation of a saint, for that would mean that I have made some real progress in my own persuit of sanctity. But, ironically, I really should hope to come to that point, to that question. If not, no progress can be made. This is not to be confused with depression…whether of the “normal” kind or the clinically defined sort. There is a world of difference between being depressed about our lives and having a crisis of faith, sensing not God’s presence, but the opposite, His non-presence or non-reality.
I dread the arrival of such a time. It must be like an all pervasive sense of darkness, where before, one saw only the warmest and brightest of light. It must be like desparately feeling one’s way blindly, looking for a switch to turn on…no…much worse…looking even for a wall, upon which such a switch might be found. Feeling utterly blind, in utter darkness, with arms outstretched and fingers aching to touch something, anything. Because feeling nothing at all, day after day, month after month and year after year, stumbling endlessly, knowing only that there’s a floor, but fearing that that is all there is, there’s nothing more, like limitless space. One naturally dreads ever having to feel that, but then to realize that sooner or later if we live long enough and if we try hard enough to achieve spiritual truth and light, this will happen. St. John of the Cross, wrote about it in his tormented “Dark Night of the Soul.” This is the night we both dread and long to enter, for without this long night, there can be no new morning of even greater light,
Is it then any wonder that most of us lag behind, keeping ourselves forever busy with the minutiae of everyday, mundane “business” of life, just staying alive, not going anywhere…no where at all…until the number of our days is over and we die “intestate,” so to speak.
Anyone who has not encountered doubts, simply has not enlisted in the struggle for spiritual growth. It’s as simple as that. I gather from what I’ve read, they think that having doubt, knocks one out of the “running” when it comes to Rome’s recognition of sanctity in a person. On the contrary; evidence that the candidate never fought doubt could be taken as proof they were not a saint! A declared Saint is a Hero of the Spirit...one who has faught the good fight and won!
Well, I guess we should be grateful, in this supremely secular/consumerist, hedonistic society, the question is raised at all. Perhaps, through these articles, some persons may be reached and clued into what the real struggle of life is all about. Of course, the doubts to which Mother Theresa confessed, had to do with the “sense” of God’s reality, rather than a purely intellectual question.
Even the slightest perusal of the lives of declared saints makes it quite clear that they all had periods in which they were deprived of the sense or the feeling of God’s presence, let alone His love. I am remembering reading of the “dry spell” as it was called in one of the biographies of St. Francis.
Most people are stuck on the “feel good” level of religion. They go to church and they pray because it makes them feel good! God help them, when that feeling is pulled away the least little bit; for that is when their faith comes into question. Will they stick to their pursuit, or will they just give up? If they “stand firm,” believing even without the sense of God’s love, then they can hope to progress to a higher or deeper level.
The name of my faith, “Contrarian Catholic,” describes just such a struggle. God forbid that I should lay claim to ever having experienced the soul-searing sense-of-God-depravation of a saint, for that would mean that I have made some real progress in my own persuit of sanctity. But, ironically, I really should hope to come to that point, to that question. If not, no progress can be made. This is not to be confused with depression…whether of the “normal” kind or the clinically defined sort. There is a world of difference between being depressed about our lives and having a crisis of faith, sensing not God’s presence, but the opposite, His non-presence or non-reality.
I dread the arrival of such a time. It must be like an all pervasive sense of darkness, where before, one saw only the warmest and brightest of light. It must be like desparately feeling one’s way blindly, looking for a switch to turn on…no…much worse…looking even for a wall, upon which such a switch might be found. Feeling utterly blind, in utter darkness, with arms outstretched and fingers aching to touch something, anything. Because feeling nothing at all, day after day, month after month and year after year, stumbling endlessly, knowing only that there’s a floor, but fearing that that is all there is, there’s nothing more, like limitless space. One naturally dreads ever having to feel that, but then to realize that sooner or later if we live long enough and if we try hard enough to achieve spiritual truth and light, this will happen. St. John of the Cross, wrote about it in his tormented “Dark Night of the Soul.” This is the night we both dread and long to enter, for without this long night, there can be no new morning of even greater light,
Is it then any wonder that most of us lag behind, keeping ourselves forever busy with the minutiae of everyday, mundane “business” of life, just staying alive, not going anywhere…no where at all…until the number of our days is over and we die “intestate,” so to speak.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Comfortable Home for Liberals
I think a good case can be made that the politically conservative mind would have more trouble digesting my stress on Freedom of Conscience than those of liberal bent; it tends to hold on to things for dear life and anything running contrary to what Sister Stern said in the sixth grade, just has to be wrong! For the conservative adult convert, if the "instructions" received didn't mention, it "taint" so either!
It is true, that most priests and teaching nuns and brothers tend not to say too much about this teaching. It can seem almost dangerous; the fear being that laymen will take advantage of it and go off on their own without sufficient reflection. And, I confess, they have a point...a small point, but a point, nontheless. What is important is that the need to give any such decisions a great deal of study, reflection and prayer before coming to any apparently wayward conclusion, has to be stressed greatly.
On the pastoral level, it is just a lot easier for priests to simplify things and the tendency is, frankly, to rely more on fear to put people on the right path. And remember, the Contrarian Catholic does not for a moment, think that the Church is wrong in its objective teaching. He merely believes that for him and in his situation, the differing opinion must be followed. (Again, the distinction must be made between objective and subjective truth.)
For example: On the question of abortion: I believe that the Church is correct in its teaching forbidding it, and I am against it too, but I believe that it is wrong for the State to get involved in the matter, legislating against it and making the moral decision for the woman. In other words, I am both pro-life and pro-choice. If any body asked my advice, I would certainly advise against abortion (and I, unlike many, make no dicision as to the particulars...rape, incest, etc.)
It is true, that most priests and teaching nuns and brothers tend not to say too much about this teaching. It can seem almost dangerous; the fear being that laymen will take advantage of it and go off on their own without sufficient reflection. And, I confess, they have a point...a small point, but a point, nontheless. What is important is that the need to give any such decisions a great deal of study, reflection and prayer before coming to any apparently wayward conclusion, has to be stressed greatly.
On the pastoral level, it is just a lot easier for priests to simplify things and the tendency is, frankly, to rely more on fear to put people on the right path. And remember, the Contrarian Catholic does not for a moment, think that the Church is wrong in its objective teaching. He merely believes that for him and in his situation, the differing opinion must be followed. (Again, the distinction must be made between objective and subjective truth.)
For example: On the question of abortion: I believe that the Church is correct in its teaching forbidding it, and I am against it too, but I believe that it is wrong for the State to get involved in the matter, legislating against it and making the moral decision for the woman. In other words, I am both pro-life and pro-choice. If any body asked my advice, I would certainly advise against abortion (and I, unlike many, make no dicision as to the particulars...rape, incest, etc.)
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Objective vs. Subjective Truth
I think the problem both Greg and bornagain Catholic has with what I wrote in the first blog, comes from the need to distinguish between objective and subjective truth; that is the whole point of 1782…that we, all of us, after careful study of the Church’s teaching, must follow our own conscience…subjective though it obviously is.
But what about confession? The sacrament of reconciliation is not to be avoided, when following the dictates of conscience. This sacrament is a powerful source of grace, and Lord knows, we all have plenty of sins we can confess without including those things which are not in violation of conscience! One obviously should not “confess” something which, in the privacy and primacy of his own conscience, he does not believe to be a sin! If a person did so, the confessor would have to conclude that the penitent believes it is a sin and acts accordingly In all haste, I would add one caveat to all this: Because the conclusion reached by the sincere examination of conscience on the part of one person is, by its very nature, subjective and personal, it should not to be “taught” to others in opposition to the objective and universal nature of the Church’s official teaching. That would be an egregious and probably sinful distortion of the Church’s teaching regarding the freedom of individual conscience.
In the illustration above, for example, it would be wrong for a woman to effectively “teach” her position regarding that moral issue to others, representing it as Catholic. Just as she should not mention it in confession, she should also not tell others to follow her example. She should consider this matter as something between God and herself, strictly personal and confidential.
I hope this clarifies things a bit.
But what about confession? The sacrament of reconciliation is not to be avoided, when following the dictates of conscience. This sacrament is a powerful source of grace, and Lord knows, we all have plenty of sins we can confess without including those things which are not in violation of conscience! One obviously should not “confess” something which, in the privacy and primacy of his own conscience, he does not believe to be a sin! If a person did so, the confessor would have to conclude that the penitent believes it is a sin and acts accordingly In all haste, I would add one caveat to all this: Because the conclusion reached by the sincere examination of conscience on the part of one person is, by its very nature, subjective and personal, it should not to be “taught” to others in opposition to the objective and universal nature of the Church’s official teaching. That would be an egregious and probably sinful distortion of the Church’s teaching regarding the freedom of individual conscience.
In the illustration above, for example, it would be wrong for a woman to effectively “teach” her position regarding that moral issue to others, representing it as Catholic. Just as she should not mention it in confession, she should also not tell others to follow her example. She should consider this matter as something between God and herself, strictly personal and confidential.
I hope this clarifies things a bit.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Freedom of Conscience
A Little Known Truth About Catholicism: She respects FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE
Most practicing Catholics seem unaware of the fact that Catholics do have the right to take exception to a teaching of the Church…they are unaware of the Church’s own teaching regarding freedom of conscience in the determination of culpability regarding actions taken in opposition to her teaching.
In the current Catholic Catechism, one reads:
#1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.
Holy Mother Church knows how easily we can practice self deception, so she adds a wise caveat:
#1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.
Truly our conscience is not formed in a vacuum and we are constantly bombarded by the “teachings” of the world. And, as loyal Catholics, we must be as well informed about the Church’s formal teaching. But, in the end, all things considered, if the individual believes in his heart of hearts that a given act is not a sin in a particular instance, for him/herself.he MUST obey conscience! The decision of conscience obviously is confined to the individual person and does not apply to others.
Take for example: A very devout Catholic woman divorces a battering spouse and, after trying to live singly and celibate, unexpectedly finds herself in love with a wonderful man. She talks to her parish priest about it. He simply tells her what the Church’s official position is and she leaves crestfallen. She earnestly prays for guidance, and after a considerable time elapses, decides that marrying the second man “outside the Church” would not be wrong, and she does it. She continues going to Mass regularly, but denies herself Holy Communion because the Church says she has committed a sin. But is it all that clear…cut and dried, as it were. I maintain, as a Contrarian Catholic, that she should not refrain from Communion because in her own conscience, marrying and cohabiting with the second man who is totally loving and supportive of her, is absolutely not wrong…in fact, the best thing she ever did.
That is the way I understand instructions 1782 and 1783 in the Catechism. I would respectfully consider any opinion in opposition to this understanding.
Most practicing Catholics seem unaware of the fact that Catholics do have the right to take exception to a teaching of the Church…they are unaware of the Church’s own teaching regarding freedom of conscience in the determination of culpability regarding actions taken in opposition to her teaching.
In the current Catholic Catechism, one reads:
#1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.
Holy Mother Church knows how easily we can practice self deception, so she adds a wise caveat:
#1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.
Truly our conscience is not formed in a vacuum and we are constantly bombarded by the “teachings” of the world. And, as loyal Catholics, we must be as well informed about the Church’s formal teaching. But, in the end, all things considered, if the individual believes in his heart of hearts that a given act is not a sin in a particular instance, for him/herself.he MUST obey conscience! The decision of conscience obviously is confined to the individual person and does not apply to others.
Take for example: A very devout Catholic woman divorces a battering spouse and, after trying to live singly and celibate, unexpectedly finds herself in love with a wonderful man. She talks to her parish priest about it. He simply tells her what the Church’s official position is and she leaves crestfallen. She earnestly prays for guidance, and after a considerable time elapses, decides that marrying the second man “outside the Church” would not be wrong, and she does it. She continues going to Mass regularly, but denies herself Holy Communion because the Church says she has committed a sin. But is it all that clear…cut and dried, as it were. I maintain, as a Contrarian Catholic, that she should not refrain from Communion because in her own conscience, marrying and cohabiting with the second man who is totally loving and supportive of her, is absolutely not wrong…in fact, the best thing she ever did.
That is the way I understand instructions 1782 and 1783 in the Catechism. I would respectfully consider any opinion in opposition to this understanding.
The One True Church
Il Papa has gotten himself in a bit of a twist with the secular world with his latest pronouncement regarding the unique status of the Roman Church relative to all the other eccesiastical Christian groupings. I would have been surprised if this had not been the reaction of the world, which is awash in relativistic materialism.
For any organization in today's world to lay such a claim...to state it flat out like that, has to inflame a world so used to politicians who dice up everything in such a way as to backtrack with the least amount of negative reaction. In a "politically correct" society, where everything has to carry qualifyers and disclaimers, etc., this kind of "in your face" pronouncement must seem terribly discomfiting.
But...even as a Contrarian Catholic, I hear Benedict's no-give voice with a certain amount of pride, confirming my decision in my nineteenth year of life, deciding to forego the "feel good" religion of my birth. That I can take issue with a few teachings (stress: not doctrines!) is, in itself, testimony to the superiority (yes, I dare say it!) of the mother church of Christianity, teaching the supremacy of individual conscience.
For any organization in today's world to lay such a claim...to state it flat out like that, has to inflame a world so used to politicians who dice up everything in such a way as to backtrack with the least amount of negative reaction. In a "politically correct" society, where everything has to carry qualifyers and disclaimers, etc., this kind of "in your face" pronouncement must seem terribly discomfiting.
But...even as a Contrarian Catholic, I hear Benedict's no-give voice with a certain amount of pride, confirming my decision in my nineteenth year of life, deciding to forego the "feel good" religion of my birth. That I can take issue with a few teachings (stress: not doctrines!) is, in itself, testimony to the superiority (yes, I dare say it!) of the mother church of Christianity, teaching the supremacy of individual conscience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)